Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Spring Valley Produce, Inc., et al. v. Nathan Aaron Forrest, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 21-12133 · judgment August 31, 2022
Before the decision, about 2.7× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a circuit split argued in the petition, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and an Eleventh Circuit decision below.
Question presented
This petition arises from the collision of two federal statutes, namely Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C.) § 523(a)(4) and the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930, as amended (7 U.S.C. §§ 499a-499t) (PACA). PACA regulates the interstate sale of produce, and imposes a trust upon produce and its proceeds for the benefit of produce sellers. 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c)(2). Use of trust assets is restricted, and failure to maintain the trust is unlawful, but the statute does not require trust funds to be segregated from other funds. 7 U.S.C. § 499b(3), (4); 7 C.F.R. § 46.46(b). Individual debtors who file for chapter 7 bankruptcy can discharge some of their debts. 11 U.S.C. § 727(a). But Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(4) bars discharge of certain debts incurred “while acting in a fiduciary capacity.” In general, the fiduciary-capacity requirement is satisfied by a statutory trust. Larson v. Bayer (In re Bayer), 521 B.R. 491, 506 (Bankr. E.D.Pa. 2014). The dispute in this case turns on whether a federal statute imposing a nonsegregated trust, like PACA, satisfies the fiduciary-capacity requirement. Federal courts are “hopelessly divided” (id. at 509), with circuit courts split four to three. The question presented is: May a debtor in bankruptcy discharge liability for unlawfully violating a nonsegregated statutory trust?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Reno Frank Relle Fernandez III
Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP
For respondent
Daniel L. Geyser
Haynes and Boone, LLP
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Proceedings
- Jun 05 2023Petition DENIED.
- May 16 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/1/2023.
- May 12 2023Reply of petitioners Spring Valley Produce, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Apr 27 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 27, 2023.
- Apr 27 2023Brief of respondents Nathan Aaron Forrest, et al. in opposition filed.
- Apr 26 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 26, 2023 to April 27, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
- Apr 12 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 26, 2023.
- Apr 11 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 19, 2023 to April 26, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
- Mar 16 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 19, 2023.
- Mar 15 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 20, 2023 to April 19, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
- Feb 15 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 20, 2023.
- Feb 14 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 16, 2023 to March 20, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jan 17 2023Response Requested. (Due February 16, 2023)
- Jan 11 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/17/2023.
- Dec 14 2022Waiver of right of respondents Nathan Aaron Forrest, et al. to respond filed.
- Nov 28 2022Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 30, 2022)